Functional near-infrared spectroscopy in pediatric clinical research: Different pathophysiologies and promising clinical applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over its 30 years of existence, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) has matured into a highly versatile tool to study brain function in infants and young children. Its advantages, amongst others, include its ease of application and portability, the option to combine it with electrophysiology, and its relatively good tolerance to movement. As shown by the impressive body of fNIRS literature in the field of cognitive developmental neuroscience, the method's strengths become even more relevant for (very) young individuals who suffer from neurological, behavioral, and/or cognitive impairment. Although a number of studies have been conducted with a clinical perspective, fNIRS cannot yet be considered as a truly clinical tool. The first step has been taken in this direction by studies exploring options in populations with well-defined clinical profiles. To foster further progress, here, we review several of these clinical approaches to identify the challenges and perspectives of fNIRS in the field of developmental disorders. We first outline the contributions of fNIRS in selected areas of pediatric clinical research: epilepsy, communicative and language disorders, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. We provide a scoping review as a framework to allow the highlighting of specific and general challenges of using fNIRS in pediatric research. We also discuss potential solutions and perspectives on the broader use of fNIRS in the clinical setting. This may be of use to future research, targeting clinical applications of fNIRS in children and adolescents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".